I wonder often; Why do many people get so hung up on their own definitions of words before they give the words a chance to convey meaning beyond what the listener is willing to allow the speaker to utilize... It might be innately wrong, but seldom the ease for verbose explanation or accurate rendering of complex ideas will often be for most an effort beyond what is generally considered viable. Such persons seem to be the ones who get less out of life as they aren't willing to consider meaning beyond their own comfortability zones of lexicon. On a related note: [Trying to be objective, not meaning to generalize or be rude] It seems like the 'republican/conservative' mentality propagates the 'fnord' that semantics becomes when one is conditioned to demonize logical high-level interaction. It's weponised in a passive aggressive unwillingness to further a concept beyond their gated lexicon and any attempt to use bouqueic meaning further than their imposed limitations, and will do everything but be receptively considerate to the topic/subtopic, the meaning of the conversation, and will usually end on an unrelated unwelcome concept that paints you in a corner of truth, leaving you to wonder whether benefits for the actions taken could exist for either party, beyond the common pleasure brought by actually understanding what is being spoken between two or more conversationalists; Although this isn't as prevalent as it was 30 years ago, as the modern conservative/restrictive thinkers are less indoctrinated against the abstraction of thought and definitions.
I wonder if "gated lexicon" could equally apply to your comment above - minus the "please don't take me as rude" communications, always of course conveying the speaker's phatic intent... Perhaps, a case of simple projection of your gated-lexical narrowmindedness, onto a fictitious opponent... constructed out of your own hypocrisy. After all, those in glass houses ...
She's so humble, she didn't even mention that she is the one who unified Formal Semantics and Formal Linguistics
I thought she seemed awfully capable!
Thank you for these lecture! Very interesting and clearing the ideas in a field with a complicated history.
What a legend
Wonderful lecture
I love her.
She is so cute 🥰
I wonder often; Why do many people get so hung up on their own definitions of words before they give the words a chance to convey meaning beyond what the listener is willing to allow the speaker to utilize... It might be innately wrong, but seldom the ease for verbose explanation or accurate rendering of complex ideas will often be for most an effort beyond what is generally considered viable. Such persons seem to be the ones who get less out of life as they aren't willing to consider meaning beyond their own comfortability zones of lexicon.
On a related note: [Trying to be objective, not meaning to generalize or be rude] It seems like the 'republican/conservative' mentality propagates the 'fnord' that semantics becomes when one is conditioned to demonize logical high-level interaction. It's weponised in a passive aggressive unwillingness to further a concept beyond their gated lexicon and any attempt to use bouqueic meaning further than their imposed limitations, and will do everything but be receptively considerate to the topic/subtopic, the meaning of the conversation, and will usually end on an unrelated unwelcome concept that paints you in a corner of truth, leaving you to wonder whether benefits for the actions taken could exist for either party, beyond the common pleasure brought by actually understanding what is being spoken between two or more conversationalists; Although this isn't as prevalent as it was 30 years ago, as the modern conservative/restrictive thinkers are less indoctrinated against the abstraction of thought and definitions.
I wonder if "gated lexicon" could equally apply to your comment above - minus the "please don't take me as rude" communications, always of course conveying the speaker's phatic intent... Perhaps, a case of simple projection of your gated-lexical narrowmindedness, onto a fictitious opponent... constructed out of your own hypocrisy. After all, those in glass houses ...
Man this is really not what this video is about.
Anything ironic about Partee's first utterance?
She is cute :)